1. JAVID IQBAL, J.-- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Akbar Kadri petitioner. The background is that after completing 25 years of service whereby he had been qualified for pension etc., he applied on 24th August, 1978 for retirement before attaining superannuation. At the same time he also applied for L.P.R. From 13th September, 1978 to 12th March, 1979 as at that time the petitioner could get only six months' leave on full pay. This request was granted on 18th September, 1978. While he was still on L.P.R. On 5th November, 1978, the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Finance Department (respondent No. 4) issued revised leave rule according to which the period of L.P.R. Was extended up to 365 days subject to entitlement. As the said rules were applicable to those who were already on L.P.R. Also, the petitioner applied for extension of his L.P.R. By six months which was granted to him by the Controller, Printing and Stationery, Government of Punjab (respondent No. 1) on 20th January, 1979 through an order superseding the previous order. Respondent No. 1 also refixed the date of the petitioner's superannuation as 13th September, 1979 instead of 12th March, 1979. In the meantime the petitioner had opted that his case be governed under the revised rules. Eventually this matter was decided by Secretary Industries (respondent No. 3) in favour of the petitioner on 2nd October, 1979 and the petitioner was considered to be entitled to avail of 365 days L.P.R. Thereafter, on 20th October, 1979 a circular letter was issued by respondent No. 4 (Secretary to Government, Punjab Finance Department) deleting cases of certain persons as not governed by the revised rules and on the basis of this circular letter respondent No.1 issued an order refixing the date of the petitioner's superannuation again as 13th March, 1979 and suggesting to the Accountant-General Punjab (respondent No.5) to recover the salary of the extra six months already paid to the petitioner out of his gratuity. Accordingly Rs.7,958.23 were deducted from the petitioner's dues. The appeal of the petitioner before the appellate authority having been rejected he moved the Punjab Services Tribunal Lahore praying that the circular letter of respondent No.4 as well as the subsequent order, dated 5th November, 1979 of respondent No.1 be declared as illegal and void. This appeal was dismissed on 18th June, 1981. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. It was inter alia argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if certain rights had been created in favour of the petitioner under an order, these could not be withdrawn or rescinded by a subsequent order. Consequently respondents Nos. 1 to 3 could not pass any order against the petitioner when he had already retired and was no more a Government servant i.e. After completion of his 365 days' L.P.R. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on PLD 1969 SC 407 (Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi). It was next submitted that when the earlier order had become operative and was given effect to, it could not be withdrawn or cancelled by a subsequent order of respondent No.4. It was further submitted that respondent No. 4 allowed the concession of 365 days L.P.R. To the retiring Government servants instead of six months' L.P.R. And this was admissible to the petitioner whose L.P.R. Was due on full pay vide para. 3(iii) para. 18 and para. 19 of the Punjab Government Finance Department Circular Letter No. SR-III-1/85/78, dated 5th November, 1978, and that circular letter was applicable to the Government servants who had been in service on 1st July, 1978 including those who were on L.P.R. On or after 1st July, 1978. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the benefits already derived by the petitioner could have not been withdrawn through a subsequent circular letter while he was no more a Government servant having already completed his L.P.R. a month before when the circular letter in question was issued to him refixing his date of superannuation. It is further contended that the finality referred to in paragraph 8 of the office memorandum, dated 27th, April, 1967 is with regard to the option to retire and not in respect of the actual date of retirement.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at some length and grant leave in this case to consider and examine the points raised by the learned counsel. Let it be prepared on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents if any, fixing the appeal for hearing at a very early date.